LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. Village of Winnetka

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiffs class-of-one claim failed because the pleadings demonstrated that neither of two identified properties was similar to the plaintiffs property
• concluding that restaurant did not state class‐of‐one equal protection claim because it failed to adequately allege the existence of a similarly situated restaurant
• holding that “regardless of the size of the disadvantaged class” equal protection requires that “under like circumstances and conditions, people must be treated alike, unless there is a rational reason for treating them differently”
• stating that substantive due process claims “involving only the deprivation of a property interest are cognizable where the plaintiff shows ‘either the inadequacy of state law remedies or an independent constitutional violation’” (citation omitted)
• affirming dismissal of substantive due process claim when plaintiff failed to state class-of-one claim and did not plead the inadequacy of state-law remedies
• dismissing equal protection claim where plaintiff conceded there was a “key difference” between plaintiff and the alleged comparator

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).